0
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments.
A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
This statement is not correct. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not. A sound argument, on the other hand, is a valid argument with true premises. So, while all sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Are some fallacious inductive arguments sound?
No, fallacious inductive arguments are not sound. Sound arguments must be valid and have true premises, but fallacious arguments contain errors in reasoning that make them unsound.
Are all valid arguments cogent arguments?
No, not all valid arguments are cogent. A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while a cogent argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, cogent arguments are a subset of valid arguments.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
Valid arguments are not described as strong or weak. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument - if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. An argument can be valid but still weak if the premises are not well-supported or sound.
Deductively sound arguments are also deductively valid?
Yes, deductively sound arguments are deductively valid. A deductively valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If the argument is deductively valid and the premises are also true, then the argument is sound.
What word is used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true?
The word used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true is "sound." A sound argument is when the logical structure of the argument is valid and all the premises are true, leading to a logically sound conclusion.
Does any body know what are the strengths and weaknesses of the pragmatic argument?
All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
Valid arguments are not described as strong or weak. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument - if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. An argument can be valid but still weak if the premises are not well-supported or sound.
Deductively sound arguments are also deductively valid?
Yes, deductively sound arguments are deductively valid. A deductively valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If the argument is deductively valid and the premises are also true, then the argument is sound.
How would you reply to strongs arguments?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
How would you reply to josiah strong arguments?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
A valid argument can have a false conclusion True or False?
True. A valid argument can have a false conclusion if the premises logically lead to that conclusion even though it is not true. Validity in logic refers to the structure of the argument, regardless of the truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion.
What should inductive arguments never be characterized as?
Inductive arguments should never be characterized as guaranteeing truth or absolute certainty. This is because inductive reasoning relies on specific examples to draw general conclusions, which are probabilistic and open to revision based on new evidence.
What would be the right way to define valid?
Well grounded; just: a valid objection.Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.Logic. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.Archaic. Of sound health; robust.validity va·lid'i·ty or val'id·nessn.validly val'id·ly adv.SYNONYMS valid, sound, cogent, convincing.These adjectives describe assertions, arguments, conclusions, reasons, or intellectual processes that are persuasive because they are well founded. What is valid is based on or borne out by truth or fact or has legal force: a valid excuse; a valid claim. What is sound is free from logical flaws or is based on valid reasoning: a sound theory; sound principles.Something cogent is both sound and compelling: cogent testimony; a cogent explanation. Convincing implies the power to dispel doubt or overcome resistance or opposition: convincing proof.
What word is used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true?
The word used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true is "sound." A sound argument is when the logical structure of the argument is valid and all the premises are true, leading to a logically sound conclusion.
What are Truth Validity and Soundness?
Truth refers to a statement that accurately reflects reality, validity refers to a logical relationship between the premises and conclusion in an argument, and soundness refers to an argument that is valid and has true premises.
When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you do you think it is more important to be valid or sound?
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound or valid?
The kalam cosmological argument is considered by many philosophers and theologians to be both valid and sound. The argument uses logic to try to demonstrate that the universe had a cause and that this cause must be a transcendent, uncaused, and timeless being, which many identify as God. However, there is ongoing debate and criticism within the philosophical community about its premises and implications.
